2020 (11) TMI 1132 - SC - Indian Laws

Land injunction suit and revenue records in second appeal: CPC s100 question need not be framed; O41 r27 evidence refused

In a second appeal from a suit for permanent injunction, the dominant issue was whether the HC erred under CPC s.100 by dismissing the appeal without ... Suit for permanent injunction - primary argument of appellant is that the High Court has dismissed the appeal without framing any substantial question of law which is mandatory in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT:- The issue of jurisdiction was not an issue of fact but of law. Therefore, it could very well be decided by the First Appellate Court while taking up the entire appeal for hearing. The trial court had also not treated issue No. 2 relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as a preliminary issue. Therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the appellants by not deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the first instance by the First Appellate Court. It may also be noticed that the plea of bar of jurisdiction was raised by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and not by the appellants. Furthermore, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code was in respect of revenue documents in respect of Village Basai Darapur. Admittedly, the appellants have no claim on any part of the land of Village Basai Darapur. The appellants are asserting their possession relating to Khasra No. 79 of Village Shakarpur. The appellants have sought such revenue record in the additional evidence as the same was not in their knowledge and that no issue was also framed as to the correctness of the area of Khasra No. 238 of Village Basai Darapur - the entire argument that no issue was framed in respect of correctness of area of Khasra No. 238 is untenable. The parties have understood the case about the area of Khasra No. 238 falling in Basai Darapur or in Khasra No. 79 of Village Shakarpur. Once the parties have understood the said controversy and had adduced evidence before the trial court, the appellant cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence in the first appeal. Thus, the additional documents cannot be permitted to be produced as they are not relevant to the plea raised by the appellant. The High Court did not commit any illegality in not framing any substantial question of law while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law is required to be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal. If the High Court is satisfied that such substantial question of law is involved, it is required to formulate that question. The appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated. However, the Court has the power to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the proviso of Section 100 of the Code - The formulation of substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law. The High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. There are no error in the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the Second Appeal - appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether, while dismissing a second appeal, the High Court is mandatorily required to formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even when it finds that no such question arises. (ii) Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant a permanent injunction based on possession was barred (expressly or impliedly) by the Delhi Land Revenue Act in the guise of a 'boundary dispute', or otherwise barred under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. (iii) Whether non-decision (as a separate preliminary matter) of the objection to Civil Court jurisdiction, and non-adjudication of an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, raised any substantial question of law warranting interference. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Requirement to formulate substantial question of law when dismissing a second appeal Legal framework: The Court analysed Section 100 CPC, noting that a second appeal lies only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; if so satisfied, it 'shall formulate' that question, and the appeal is then heard on the question so formulated. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that formulation of a substantial question of law is contingent on the High Court first finding that such a question arises. Where the High Court is not satisfied that any substantial question of law is involved, it is not obliged to formulate any question. The obligation to formulate (or reformulate under the proviso) operates only when a substantial question of law exists; it does not compel formulation in every dismissal order. The Court accepted the principle that reversal of concurrent findings cannot be made without framing substantial questions of law, but distinguished that situation from a dismissal where no substantial question arises. Conclusion: The High Court committed no illegality in dismissing the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law because the proposed questions did not, in fact, arise for consideration. Issue (ii): Civil Court jurisdiction-whether barred by the Land Revenue Act/Reforms Act in a possession-based injunction suit Legal framework: The Court proceeded on the plenary jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 CPC, subject to express or implied statutory bar. It considered the Delhi Land Revenue Act provisions relied upon to contend a bar regarding 'boundary disputes,' and examined the statutory bar under the Land Revenue Act (as discussed in the judgment) which was limited to specific subjects (such as patwari area arrangements, certain office-related claims, and record-of-rights/annual register matters). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the characterization of the controversy as a statutory 'boundary dispute' ousting Civil Court jurisdiction. It reasoned that 'boundary disputes' under the Land Revenue Act concern disputes between two revenue estates and are distinct from demarcation/identification of land claimed by private parties. The statutory bar identified in the Land Revenue Act did not cover the dispute before the Court, as it did not relate to any of the enumerated barred matters. Additionally, the suit was a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction founded on possession, and the Court found no mechanism under the Land Revenue Act for grant of injunction in possession disputes; therefore, Civil Court jurisdiction was not impliedly excluded. The Court held there was neither express nor implied bar to Civil Court jurisdiction in the case. Conclusion: The Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the possession-based injunction suit and the allied question of identifying in which khasra number the suit land fell; jurisdiction was not barred under the Land Revenue Act (or otherwise on the grounds pressed in the appeal). Issue (iii): Effect of not deciding jurisdiction first and not deciding the Order XLI Rule 27 application-whether any substantial question of law arose Legal framework: The Court addressed (a) the sequencing of deciding jurisdictional objections in appeal, and (b) the scope of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, in light of the issues framed and the controversy understood and tried by the parties. Interpretation and reasoning: On jurisdiction sequencing, the Court held that jurisdiction is a question of law and could be decided while hearing the appeal on merits; there was no requirement that it must be decided first as a preliminary issue, particularly when the trial court itself had not treated it as preliminary. Consequently, absence of a separate, prior determination caused no prejudice. The Court also noted that the plea of bar was raised by other defendants, not by the appellant. On additional evidence, the Court found the revenue documents sought to be introduced pertained to the revenue estate of Basai Darapur, whereas the appellant's case was that the disputed land fell in Shakarpur. The Court held the proposed additional evidence was not relevant to the appellant's pleaded case. Further, the Court found that the trial involved issues squarely addressing ownership/possession and whether the suit land formed part of one khasra number or the other; the parties understood this controversy and led evidence accordingly. In such circumstances, the appellant could not seek to introduce additional evidence in first appeal on the premise that no issue was framed regarding the area/correctness of the khasra details, which the Court held to be untenable. Conclusion: Neither the alleged failure to decide jurisdiction first nor the non-acceptance/non-consideration of the Order XLI Rule 27 request raised any substantial question of law; the additional evidence was held irrelevant to the appellant's own plea, and no prejudice was established.